Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:49:07.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logic, Quantum Logic and Empiricism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John Bell  and
Michael Hallett
John Bell
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Department of Philosophy, London School of Economics
Michael Hallett
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Department of Philosophy, London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper treats some of the issues raised by Putnam's discussion of, and claims for, quantum logic, specifically: that its proposal is a response to experimental difficulties; that it is a reasonable replacement for classical logic because its connectives retain their classical meanings, and because it can be derived as a logic of tests. We argue that the first claim is wrong (1), and that while conjunction and disjunction can be considered to retain their classical meanings, negation crucially does not. The argument is conducted via a thorough analysis of how the meet, join and complementation operations are defined in the relevant logical structures, respectively Boolean- and ortholattices (3). Since Putnam wishes to reinstate a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, we ask how quantum logic can be a logic of realism. We show that it certainly cannot be a logic of bivalence realism (i.e., of truth and falsity), although it is consistent with some form of ontological realism (4). Finally, we show that while a reasonable explication of the idealized notion of test yields interesting mathematical structure, it by no means yields the rich ortholattice structure which Putnam (following Finkelstein) seeks.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 355 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, J. L. (forthcoming), “Categories, Toposes and Sets”, Synthese.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. (1960), Lattice Theory. Third Edition. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. XXV.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. and Neumann, J. von (1936), “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics”, Annals of Mathematics 37: 823–843. Reprinted in Hooker (ed.) The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colodny, R. (ed.) (1972), Paradoxes and Paradigms, Vol. 5. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1976), “Is Logic Empirical?” in Lewis, H. D. (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin: 45–68. Page numbers in the text refer to the reprinting in M. Dummett: Truth and Other Enigmas. London: Duckworth, 1978, 269–89.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1977), Elements of Intuitionism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (1972), “Some Conceptual Problems of Quantum Theory”, in Colodny (ed.) Paradoxes and Paradigms, Vol. 5: 3–31.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, D. (1963), “The Logic of Quantum Physics”, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 25: 621–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, D. (1969), “Matter, Space and Logic” in Cohen, R. S. and Wartofsky, M. (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 5, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 199–215. Page numbers in the text refer to the reprinting in Hooker (ed.) The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 2: 123–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, D. (1972), “The Physics of Logic” in Colodny (ed.) Paradoxes and Paradigms, Vol. 5. Reference is to the reprinting in Hooker (ed.) The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 2: 141–160.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. (1971), “Is Quantum Logic Really Logic?”, Philosophy of Science 38: 508–529.10.1086/288393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldblatt, R. (1975), “The Stone Space of an Ortholattice”, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 7: 45–48.10.1112/blms/7.1.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C. (ed.) (1975), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics, Vols. 1 and 2. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-1795-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. P. (1967), “The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematical Mechanics 17: 59–67. Reprinted in Hooker (ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1: 293–328.Google Scholar
Maclane, S. (1975), “Sets, Topoi and Internal Logic in Categories” In Categories, and Shepherdson, J. C. (eds.), Logic Colloquium ‘73. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mielnik, B. (1968), “Geometry of Quantum States”, Communications of Mathematical Physics 9: 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielnik, B. (1969), “Theory of Filters”, Communications of Mathematical Physics 15: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1965), “A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics” in Colodny, R. (ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Page numbers in the text refer to the reprinting in Putnam Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1: 130–158.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1969), “Is Logic Empirical?” in R. Cohen and M. Wartofsky (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 5, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 216–41, Page numbers in the text refer to the reprinting under the title “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics” in Putnam Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1: 174–197.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), Philosophical Papers, Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1951), “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review 60: 20–43. Reprinted in W.V. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varadarajan, V. S. (1968), Geometry of Quantum Theory, Vol. 1, Princeton: Van Nostrand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar